Other Regulations and Guidance International Contract

Numerous guidelines are available to assist the government contracting employee

to do their jobs ethically. Federal statute 48 C.F.R. § 37.104(b) prohibits government

contracting employees from participating in actions that affords financial gain

(Acquisition Central, 2014). Public servants must depict accountability, legality,

responsiveness, and integrity when doing their jobs (Elcock, 2012). The American

Society for Public Administration (ASPA) code of ethics mandates that government

employees deliberate public interest while doing government business (Svara, 2014).

As trust and ethics are essential to government contracting, employees must be

sincere from the onset of employment and continue to demonstrate honest character traits

throughout their profession. Predominate laws govern the government contracting

process. The following are five primary regulations/guidelines that the government

contracting organizations know: Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947 (ASPA), the

Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (FPASA), the Competition in

Contracting Act (CICA), the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), and the Defense

Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS). ASPA regulates the acquisition of all

property (except land), construction, and services by defense agencies (Acquisition

Central, 2014).

As noted under 10. U.S.C. 2307 – Contract Financing, government contracting

employees, may reimburse suppliers for services rendered under a government contract

(GPO, 2011). Subpart 32.1 of the FAR notes that government contracting employees can

create additional payments to suppliers for execution of contracts(Acquisition Central,

2014). The payments cannot exceed the negotiated price of the contract (Acquisition

Central, 2014). In 1949, with the enactment of the Federal Property and Administrative

Services Act of 1949 (FPASA), the General Services Administration developed (General

Services Administration [GSA], 2013). The GSA (2013) noted that FPASA regulates

procurement, utilization, and disposal of government property. CICA regulates both

defense and civilian purchases and mandates that all government contracting entities will

provide full and open competition prior to seeking sole-source acquisitions (U.S.

Department of Labor, 2003).

CICA directed that all contracting actions terminate if a vendor disputes any

provision of the contract through a GAO protest (Maser et al., 2010). The FAR is the

primary regulation in the Federal Acquisition System, and the DFARS are supplemental

documents to the FAR specifically structured for agencies in the Department of Defense

[DoD] (Cohn, 2011). The FAR and DFARS contain regulatory and policy guidelines for

implementation of government contracting functions (Wydler et al., 2013). In addition to

the principal laws, Congress generated supplementary sources that focused on alternative

government contracting requirements.

Additional sources include laws that the government contracting employees may

not utilize on a daily basis; however, the regulations may be necessary for particular

aspects of government contract administration. Congress enacted the Federal Acquisition

Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA) in an attempt to reform government contracting

business (Lansiti, 2012). With the implementation of the FASA and the Federal

Acquisition Reform Act of 1996 (FARA), SBA (2014) noted that Congress emphasized

the use of market research for the government agencies.

As detailed in the Federal Government Contracting Regulations (FAR), Subpart

12, FASA and FARA outlines and details the federal government’s preferences for the

acquisition of commercial items (Acquisition Central, 2014). The FASA and the FARA

provided government contracting organizations with direction and authority to consider

the cost of buying products and services from commercial or private suppliers (Lansiti,

2012). Adams and Balfour (2010) noted that the federal government organizations are

dependent on contracting services to purchase goods and services. Overreliance on

outsourcing led to scandals and public outcry for reform of government contracting

policies(Adams & Balfour, 2010).

Enactment of regulatory policies provided simplification of aggressive policies for

government contracting organizations when buying from commercial or private suppliers

(Adams & Balfour, 2010). The purpose of FASA and FARA is to eliminate corruption and

excessive cost in government contracting by focusing on competition. Adding

competition to government contracting purchasing decisions might improve efficiency

since competition causes suppliers to consider all aspects of the contract

(Lamothe & Lamothe, 2012). The imposition of FASA and FARA revised more than 225

statutory regulations related to government contracting procurement (DOL, 2014b).

Government contracting guidelines and regulations offer rules to ensure government

contracting employees’ compliance with established laws and may assist employees to

understand why behaving morally when conducting government contracting business is

necessary.

Transition and Summary

Section 1 of this study included a variety of topics and strategies such as the

problem and purpose of the research. I assessed the nature of the study, identifying and

describing the research question, looking at the conceptual framework, and the literature

review of the study. The literature review provided a thorough background in the area of

the government contracting. In Section 2, the focus was the project. I built on the

foundation given in Section 1, with the research method and design used to assess

elements of the managerial knowledge needed to prevent government contracting

employees’ unethical behaviors when administering contracts. In section 3, I explained

and documented the findings of the study. I addressed implications for social change,

presented explanations for actions deemed necessary for further study of this research

topic, and concluded with reflections on the research process.

Section 2: The Project

In Section 2, I have provided a summary of the research components and explored

government contracting employees’ insights regarding the knowledge required to prevent

unethical behaviors by government contracting employees. Section 2 covers (a) the

intention of the doctoral study, (b) participants in the study, (c) research method and

design, (d) population of the research, (e) data collection, and analysis techniques, (f)

ethical research, and finally, (g) reliability and validity of the research process.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to provide a clear understanding of

the knowledge required by government contracting managers to mitigate unethical

behaviors of government contracting employees when administering contracts. In this

case study, the research of Bao et al. (2013) formed the basis for researching and

understanding the worth of management and leadership development in government

contracting. Twenty-one government contracting managers from the Defense Logistics

Agency in the mid-Atlantic region participated shared their insights about the strategies

needed to stop employees’ unethical behaviors when administering contracts. This study

might affect a business practice by helping government contracting managers learn

strategies to reduce contracting employee unethical behaviors when administering

contracts.

Role of the Researcher

I was the principal data collection instrument. Pezalla, Pettigrew, and Miller-Day

(2012) posited that the instrument is the researcher who critically collects data and

ensures that the information represents what participants are conveying. My dual role of

researcher and business member presented both opportunities and challenges for this

doctoral study. Having familiarity with the organization and access to information

pertinent to this study did not present challenges in mitigating personal bias. Cleary et al.

(2014) noted challenges in researching a specific population including engaging with

participants, translating data, participant recruitment, data collection, and reliability.

Establishing relationships with interviewees offered a broader perspective of the targeted

culture (Cleary et al., 2014).

I used in-depth interviews to collect data for this research study. The qualitative

researcher analyzes and interprets the data by presenting the value throughout the

interview process (Vandenberg & Hall, 2011). A qualitative researcher should commit to

the common good, mitigate bias, establish clear distinctions between the researcher and

the research subject, and step out of his or her comfort zone. The qualitative researcher

can incorporate participants’ feedback into the study (Schoorman & Bogotch, 2010). In

this study, the goals were to deliberate, gather, and present each participant’s information

in a reasonable and equitable manner (Watkins, 2012). It is necessary to mitigate personal

beliefs and biases from a qualitative research study (Phillips-Pula, Strunk, & Pickler,

2011). Aluwihare-Samaranayake (2012) posited that the researcher notes the study

environment in anticipation of challenges participants may encounter. Researchers need

to possess the logical and cognitive skills characterized in a qualitative research study

(Timmermans & Tavory, 2012).

For this study, using the technique employed under McCormack’s lenses provided

a flexible structure for analysis of multifaceted data. Drawing on an individual’s

experience and presenting their story in an unbiased manner proved beneficial (Dibley,

2011). Paulus, Lester, and Britt (2013) stressed that delivering participants’ information in

an unbiased manner is essential. The qualitative researcher must be knowledgeable about

principles, practice, dialog, and relevance of the research subject (Mikecz, 2012; Watkins,

2012). Understanding the attributes of the qualitative researcher provided a

comprehensive outcome to the research study. The principles of the Belmont Report

stressed protection of individual’s personal information (Greaney et al., 2012). The goal

was to ensure that I offered integrity by ensuring that participants’ information remains

protected.

Participants

This qualitative research study involved interviews with government contracting

managers in Pay Grades GS-11 to GS-13 working at the Defense Logistics Agency in the

mid-Atlantic region. As a government contracting employee working in the mid-Atlantic

region, I had access to government contracting managers in the chosen geographic area.

Having convenient access to individuals offered a contingent of individuals and

eliminated the need for snowball sampling that involved participants referring other

potential candidates (Cohen & Arieli, 2011). Each participant received an invitation that

explained the purpose and intent of the study along with a blanket consent form. The

consent form contained a statement that participation in this study was optional and that

declining to participate in the study could occur at any time. The names of individuals

will remain confidential (Fouka & Mantzorou, 2011; Gibson, Benson, & Brand, 2013).

An individual’s experience will determine their participation in this study.

Protecting participants from harm by obtaining informed consent will ensure each

participant’s right to privacy. Privacy and security of participants’ information is a priority

(Harvey, 2011). Obtaining consent to participate in sensitive research studies could be

difficult (Elmir, Schmied, Jackson, & Wilkes, 2011; Mehta et al., 2012). The nature of

this proposed research study may be sensitive as it involved obtaining information from

government contracting managers. Walden University (2011) requires researchers

conducting interviews with potentially vulnerable group to get permission to conduct the

research study. I asked and received permission from The Department of Defense, Office

of Security Review and Defense Logistics Agency, Public Affairs Office to conduct this

study. An authorizing official from the participation organization offered permission to

conduct this study. Each participant received an identifier such as P1, P2, or P3. During

the interview process, some participants added information to the interview subject. All

study data including interview transcripts and analysis information will remain secure for

a 5-year period (Walden University, 2011). After the 5-year period, I will permanently

destroy the study data by shredding all paper copies and writing over any electronic

records. Ensuring the privacy and comfort of government contracting managers

established ease with sharing information.

Research Method and Design

Academic strategies may employ an exclusively qualitative, quantitative, or mixed

method research design that combines qualitative and quantitative data into the same plan

(Harland & Holey, 2011). A qualitative methodology and case study research design led

this research study. Using elements of a qualitative research provided benefit to this study

by including rigorous data collection from in-depth, semistructured interviews

(Djuraskovic & Arthur, 2011). Using semistructured interviews facilitated obtaining real-

world information from participants in Pay Grades GS-11 to GS-13 working at the

Defense Logistics Agency in the mid-Atlantic region (Deschaux-Beaume,

2012).

Method

This study followed a qualitative method. Qualitative research method allows

researchers to describe naturally occurring phenomenon through pragmatic assumptions,

interpretive analysis, and ideological commitments (Hibbert et al., 2014). Quantitative

research links scientific investigation with measurable relationships between variables

based on statistical interpretations and conceptual arguments (Kozlowski et al., 2013).

The qualitative research process allows for consideration of questions based on

participants’ characterization of real-world events and offers insight into a phenomenon

(Bansal & Corley, 2011). Hazzan and Nutov (2014) posited that the problem considered

influences the methods employed in the research study. The qualitative research process

comprises a practical application of predetermined questions to get the perspectives of a

small group of participants regarding their experiences (Perry, 2013). Conducting

semistructured interviews allowed participants to provide additional information to enrich

the research subject (Cleary et al., 2014).

Quantitative data provides identification and categorization of participants’

perceptions. Using a quantitative process entails theories, statistical analysis, and

hypothesis to draw a conclusion (Kozlowski et al., 2013). This research does not require

statistical data analysis, therefore, does not meet the criteria for a quantitative study

(Goertz & Mahoney, 2012). Using a quantitative approach may prevent researchers from

replicating this study. Quantitative researchers might fail to grasp the complexity and

essence of the information participants of the study (Kisely & Kendall, 2011; Wuest,

2011). Sussman (2011) maintained that a qualitative research method is an evidenced

based approach that allows understanding a situation from the participant’s perspective.

Since a mixed method employs both qualitative and quantitative methods, it is not suited

for this study (Collingridge, 2013).

Research Design

Some researchers prefer qualitative case study designs to address issues regarding

social, organizational, and institutional effects in individual organizations or groups and

to promote change or improve practice (Mukhopadhyay & Gupta, 2014). Understanding

the phenomenon of why government contracting managers lack knowledge to preventing

unethical behaviors by government contracting employees administering governing

contracts is vital to preventing future unethical behaviors. Principal research designs

designated for qualitative studies include case study, narrative, ethnography, grounded

theory, and phenomenological (Tracy, 2013). The research question shapes the research

design (Denzin, 2012). Choosing the right design to fit the research question produced

noteworthy outcome (Aslam et al., 2012). The research design most appropriate for this

study was a single case study. Perry (2013) indicated that the foundation of case study

research is the study of human experience and the direction of human awareness towards

those experiences. Choosing a research design that allowed understanding of participants’

perspectives was important in finding answers to the research question.

When related literature is limited, Yin (2013) posited that a case study proves

useful for gathering data. The case study design justified the research question by helping

me to specify two purposes. The research question helped me to articulate the goal for

this study and the conceptual framework as well as gave credence to the correlation

among methods and validity of the study (Maxwell, 2013). This case study design will

allow focus on the process within one organization during a short time frame. The result

of this study offered the emphasis on the process rather than the outcome and holistic

view of the issue rather than isolated factors (Kumar, 2012). Other designs considered

included phenomenological, narrative, ethnography, and grounded theory.

Although a phenomenological design suited this research study because it relies

primarily on participant interviews, the researcher does not focus on one individual or

group (Ivey, 2013). Narrative research shares similar traits with the case study; however,

narrative research is time-consuming (Kisely & Kendall, 2011). Ethnographic qualitative

research that focuses on collecting data from a particular culture or sharing group did not

suit this study; the process is also timely and costly (Nayelof, Fuchs, & Moreira, 2012).

Grounded theory research was not suitable because grounded theory does not require a

fixed time for concluding this research study; grounded theory can be never-ending (Ji

Young & Eun-Lee, 2014). Case study describes a current circumstance, is multifaceted

and can provide different answers to complex problems (Sharp et al., 2011).

Population and Sampling

The population of this research study consisted of government contracting

managers working at the Defense Logistics organization in the mid-Atlantic region of the

United States. The target sample was a purposeful selection of government contracting

managers in Pay Grades GS-11 to GS-13. A qualitative researcher embraces purposeful

sampling (Suri, 2011). Offstein, Dufresne, and Childers (2012) used purposeful sampling

to analyze the behavior and moral development at the U.S. Military Academy at West

Point. Using purposeful sampling in qualitative research allows the researcher to capture

the value and in-depth understanding of participants’ information not available from

random sampling (Reybold, Lammert, & Stribling, 2013). Offstein et al. (2012) assessed

that using a purposeful sampling provided for the separation of individuals based on

qualification criteria. Silen, Kjellstrom, Christensson, Sidenvall, and Svantesson (2012)

used purposeful sampling to consider an ethical environment in nursing. Using a

purposeful sampling allowed the researchers to gain perspectives from a vast distribution

of subject matter experts (Silen et al., 2012).

Qualitative researchers use purposeful sampling to select participants based on

experience and nuanced understanding (Koch, Niesz, & McCarthy, 2014). Purposeful

sampling was the desired method of selecting government contracting managers to

participate in the semistructured interviews. Using a purposeful sampling to deliberate

government contracting managers’ insights regarding unethical behavior when

administering government contracts, suited this study. When using purposeful sampling,

the qualitative researcher should decide the demographics and number of participants

sampled as well as the sampling used (Elo et al., 2014; Plano Clark et al., 2013). A

purposeful selection of participants involved in the experience and willingness to

participate in the study (Damianakis & Woodford, 2012; Morinder, Biguet, Mattsson,

Marcus, & Larsson, 2011). Sample size and geographical area provided adequate control

over the evaluation process (Coenen, Stamm, Stucki, & Cieza, 2012). To be a part of this

study, participants were government contracting managers from a Defense Logistics

Agency in Pay Grades GS-11 through GS-13.

Qualitative research studies typically have smaller sample sizes. When there is no

further information and redundancy is evident, the researcher obtains saturation (Walker,

2012). Determining saturation in this qualitative research study aided in getting an

adequate sample size of participants (O’Reilly & Parker, 2012). In this research process, I

reached saturation when redundancy occurred, and I gain no additional data. If the

population is too large or varies significantly, the information given might be

overwhelming (Draper & Swift, 2011; Roberts, 2013). Based on Walden University

(2011) criteria, a minimum of 20 participants is an adequate sample size for conducting

this research study. Twenty-one individuals suited this study. As a result, the information

was richer and more detailed (Cooke, Smith, & Booth, 2012). A sample size of 21

government contracting managers proved an adequate population of experiences to

analyze the research data adequately and find themes of understanding. In addition,

ensuring that replication of the research may be an important aspect to justifying this

study (Yin, 2013). Yin (2013) posited that since future researchers may not have access to

the same participants or data, the results might differ. Therefore, the goal for this study

was to produce research that could amplify and edify reader’s understanding.

Ethical Research

The qualitative researcher might address ethical challenges prior to conducting the

study (Hoskins & White, 2013). Haahr, Norlyk, and Hall (2014) assessed that respect for

autonomy, kindness, and impartiality may alleviate ethical issues. Significance of ethical

research emphasizes integrity of the researcher and highlights tensions between

participation and rigor of the study (Nind, Wiles, Bengry-Howell, & Crow, 2013). Quality

in this doctoral study involved the capability to complete Walden University’s Internal

Review Board (IRB) approval process (Walden University, 2011).

Certification of training from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was a

necessary step in obtaining an approved Doctoral project from the Walden University

IRB. Walden University Office of Research Ethics and Compliance approved this

research proposal prior to data collection. After approval from the Walden University

IRB, I notified each participant of the doctoral process. I notified potential participants

using e-mail, phone, or direct contact prior to the interview process. Each individual

received an invitation to participate in the study along with the consent form. On the

consent form, I stated that participation in the study was optional and reiterated that

participants received no compensation for participating (VanderWalde & Kurzban, 2011).

Participants reviewed, ask questions for clarity, and sign the consent form stating

understanding of all parameters.

Ethically, it was important to obtain permission to conduct the study because I

must prove adherence to provisions for protecting human subjects and permission to use

the interview instrument obtained. To ensure participant’s privacy and to conduct the

interviews uninterrupted, I arranged sit-down time both face-to-face and via telephone

with each person away from the workplace. Out of respect for privacy, individual’s names

will not appear in the doctoral study. Individuals will receive unique identifiers of P1

through P20. I notified individuals regarding their right to withdraw for the interviews at

any time without penalty (Trier-Bieniek, 2012). At the end of the discussions, participants

reviewed a copy of their interview transcripts for accuracy and noted no changes. I will

keep all research data including written, audio and electronic securely for a 5-year period

after which the data will be shredded or electronically written over

(Walden University, 2011).

Data Collection

How the researcher gathers data may affect individuals’ willingness to participate

in the research study (Covell, Sidani, & Ritchie, 2012). Engaging participants in

multidisciplinary dialogs may bring richness to the conversation for both researcher and

participant (Hibbert et al., 2014). The goal is to engage participants in a comprehensive

dialog while mitigating personal bias during the interview process.

Instruments

I was the principal data collection instrument (Pezalla et al., 2012). Pezalla et al.

(2012) posited that the researcher as the data collection instrument constructs ideas from

data presented during the interview process. The goal for data collection in this study was

to gather information related to government contracting managers’ knowledge to prevent

unethical behaviors by government contracting employees when administering contracts.

Additional goals were to provide enhanced description of the results of the interviews that

may assist the organization to implement best practices and process improvements

regarding ethical requirements when administering government contracts. Interviews

were the primary method of data collection in this doctoral study. Open-ended,

semistructured interview questions facilitated the understanding of the phenomenon

captured in the following question: what knowledge do government contracting managers

need to mitigate unethical behaviors of government contracting employees when

administering contracts? Yin (2011) posited that an open-ended, semistructured interview

question provides the qualitative research the opportunity to obtain in-depth answers from

personal questions.

In this case study, 21 midlevel managers participated in semistructured interviews

directly related to the study topic. Potential weakness of this interview method involved

interviewer bias and response bias. Strengths of this method included onsite access to

participants and the opportunity to gain a clear understanding of contextual indications.

Case study proved accurate and credible by using multiple data collection sources (Yin,

2013). Data collection included interviews and documents such as prior case studies and

government reports.

When using interviews as a data collection instrument, the researcher can ensure

that the interviews could provide substance to the research study (Waite, 2014). The

qualitative researcher can move from one-dimensional view of his or her understandings

and embrace the insights of participants as given in interviews (Turner & Norwood,

2013). Nind et al. (2013) used semistructured interviews to explore the interaction

between ethics and methodological innovation in qualitative research. Nind et al. (2013)

noted that the venue for conducting interviews was as important as the interview

instrument. Ethical sensitivities such as public exposure and participant confidentiality

were critical in successful interviews (Nind et al., 2013). Vogl (2013) compared

participants and researchers’ interactions using semistructured telephone and face-to-face

interviews and the impact that each form of dialog had on participants. Vogl noted no

major difference in participants’ interactions with the researcher based on the type of

interview used; however, the environment contributed to determining the best mode for

conducting the interviews.

The comfort level of participants determined the interview venue (Vogl, 2013).

Documentation of participants’ responses from the interviews ensured reliability of the

data (Yilmaz, 2013). Reliability in qualitative research correlates with an approximation

of the sample, time, and participants’ accounts (Newman, Lim, & Pineda, 2013). I

transcribed participants’ interview responses on interview instruments located in a

secured folder on my personal computer using Microsoft Word.

Data Collection Technique

Semistructured interviews and prior documentation were the data collection

method used in this qualitative doctoral study. Discussions using eight semistructured

interview questions comprised the interview process. Government contracting employees

are acquisition experts acquiring goods and services for the benefit of the government

entities, customers, and community (OPM, 1983). In a qualitative research design, the

researcher collects information through observations, documentation, and interviews

(Marais, 2012; Yilmaz, 2013). Participants in a qualitative interview know the researcher

and feel confident that the researcher will protect their privacy (Qu & Dumay, 2011). Qu

and Dumay (2011) posited that a researcher should prepare and carefully plan for the

interview process. A researcher might focus on the interviewee and allow the individual

to present details useful to the interview process (Cleary et al., 2014). The semistructured

interviews took place at mutually agreed upon locations (Pyer & Campbell, 2012). The

qualitative exploration of this study assessed the factors that might contribute to unethical

behaviors by government contracting employees and the knowledge to help managers in

reducing employees’ unethical behaviors.

I used member checking to confirm the accuracy of my understanding of

participants’ data and to ensure accurate representation of participants’ information

(Harper, & Cole, 2012). Based on Mero-Jaffe’s (2011) assessment, participants used

member checking to review the study data to determine if I portrayed his or her

information accurately. Participants received appropriate sections of the research report

and offered comments on the accuracy of the report (Koelsch, 2013). Using member

checking, allowed me to focus on the content of participants’ experiences and request

comment on participants’ review (Goldblatt, Karnieli-Miller, & Neuman, 2011).

Transcription of interviews and member checking established the validity of the research

data by confirming what participants intended to say (Harper, & Cole, 2012). Organizing

the data into manageable files also helped with validity of the study.